As has been commented already though, they are two different railways albeit facing some of the same key challenges of skilled volunteer shortage, regulatory compliance and increasing costs that all heritage lines are. The GWR have just appointed one more paid role and are in the process of recruiting another. Rebuilding on a ‘green field’ site before a railway opens is in many ways easier, can be done without time pressure and provides an initial honeymoon period on maintenance - reaping the rewards of capital investment in new/refurbished infrastructure.

I don’t think closing 5 miles at a time of the WSR to relay with cwr a la Broadway extension is really an option as it needs to keep earning. Bear in mind also that laying a single line on a double track formation is much easier than relaying on a twisty single line formation with restricted access.

In a perfect world you would renew all the WSR track between stations with flat bottomed, rebuild at least two bridges and invest in loco and carriage sheds all of which would be investment producing a benefit in lower maintenance costs. But that would require a multi million pound capital injection!

Click to expand...

Interesting that the Gloucester Warwicks have now increased their number of paid staff to 6 still very different from the 50 employed by the WSR I suggest!

I am also sure that whilst you make very valid points about the ease of relaying a single line on a double track formation and getting it right in their own time without having to deal with existing services I do believe they would have much preferred to be in the situation of the WSR who have a very compliant landlord so have never had the capital expense and an existing although worn track in place. Add the fact that with its current abysmal record of raising money the WSR could never have had the money to fund it had it been in the same position as the GWR.

The only parallel I can find between the WSR and the GWR is the skew bridge at Gotherington which was stripped and completely rebuilt on both sides (twin track) including welding pad stone repair shot blasting & painting in deep winter in 10 weeks!! It is the biggest bridge on their line. This is a brilliant illustration of project management at minimum cost within a very limited timescale at the worst time of year.

What did however strike me last year on my first visit to the SVR in 20+ years - a line similar in scale and age was the amount of investment in the railway - carriage sheds, diesel depot, The Engine House etc etc plus of course the condition of the rolling stock in contrast to the WSR

Click to expand...

The SVR has also managed to relay three substantial stretches of line with flat-bottom CWR in recent years - despite having only a twisty single-line trackbed in which to do it!

(I do think the GWSR were maybe a bit too literal-minded when they said "we'll have bullhead within Broadway station" - the bullhead track stops literally at the ends of the platforms! So if you look up or down the line to watch a loco running round, all you can see is modern track and modern pointwork stretching off into the distance)

The SVR has also managed to relay three substantial stretches of line with flat-bottom CWR in recent years - despite having only a twisty single-line trackbed in which to do it!

(I do think the GWSR were maybe a bit too literal-minded when they said "we'll have bullhead within Broadway station" - the bullhead track stops literally at the ends of the platforms! So if you look up or down the line to watch a loco running round, all you can see is modern track and modern pointwork stretching off into the distance)

As regards the Scotsman track renewals, were they really necessary especially as they had to be undertaken at night and at short notice with all the costs that goes with a nocturnal renewal? Not the best way to get a good value deal I suggest! A question to the plc why was that not foreseen and covered with a forward plan? At best It does appear to be a cockamamie way of doing things!

Click to expand...

I'd suggest it is the short notice that leads to additional expense, not the fact it was overnight. The Bluebell replaced a section of about 200 yards of track last summer doing it in two overnight possessions during the daily running season between trains with almost all volunteer labour. It was planned well in advance though!

I'm not very close to the infrastructure side on our railway, but the combination of expense, the need to order and get delivered to site considerable quantities of bulky materials, and the need to fit work around availability of volunteers, machinery and within the timetable (either overnight or during winter shutdown periods for more extensive jobs), suggests that it is the kind of thing that probably requires planning as a rolling programme stretching several years in advance, at least in outline. As ever, availability of finance at the right time is key.

True, Ian and am I guilty as well. However post 451. posted by a WSRA Trustee, started the ball rolling I believe, with a 'Russian' infantryman, jeep and copy of Pravda. The rest is 'history' as they say.

The Severn Valley benefits from a much more populous catchment area, and doesn't have a large expanse of water like the Severn Estuary close by. As a consequence, passenger numbers and revenue are both higher than the WSR, almost 241000 passengers in 2017. The big difference is that the closest equivalent on the SVR to the WSRA, namely the Severn Valley Railway Charitable Trust, donated £345000 to SVR PLC projects in 2017, and £280000 the previous year. Contrast that with the few hundred pounds raised for WSR projects by the WSRA!

You may ask how I know all this! Well, in spite of my previously being a volunteer on the WSR, and now on the GWSR, my daughter, on joining me one weekend last autumn on a visit to the SVR, picked up a leaflet regarding SVR shareholdiing, and persuaded the rest of the family to join her in purchasing some SVR shares for me as a Christmas present. Hence I have their annual report.

Mainly due to having inherited the 'late parenthood' gene from my father I find myself with a young family and grey hair and dont get around the other lines so know the WSR & Swanage well but the other lines much less so.

What did however strike me last year on my first visit to the SVR in 20+ years - a line similar in scale and age was the amount of investment in the railway - carriage sheds, diesel depot, The Engine House etc etc plus of course the condition of the rolling stock in contrast to the WSR

So yes as well as management the line needs a structure that allows it to raise money for investment maintenance & improvement

Interesting that the Gloucester Warwicks have now increased their number of paid staff to 6 still very different from the 50 employed by the WSR I suggest!

I am also sure that whilst you make very valid points about the ease of relaying a single line on a double track formation and getting it right in their own time without having to deal with existing services I do believe they would have much preferred to be in the situation of the WSR who have a very compliant landlord so have never had the capital expense and an existing although worn track in place. Add the fact that with its current abysmal record of raising money the WSR could never have had the money to fund it had it been in the same position as the GWR.

The only parallel I can find between the WSR and the GWR is the skew bridge at Gotherington which was stripped and completely rebuilt on both sides (twin track) including welding pad stone repair shot blasting & painting in deep winter in 10 weeks!! It is the biggest bridge on their line. This is a brilliant illustration of project management at minimumwithin a very limited timescale at the worst time of year.

I'd suggest it is the short notice that leads to additional expense, not the fact it was overnight. The Bluebell replaced a section of about 200 yards of track last summer doing it in two overnight possessions during the daily running season between trains with almost all volunteer labour. It was planned well in advance though!

I'm not very close to the infrastructure side on our railway, but the combination of expense, the need to order and get delivered to site considerable quantities of bulky materials, and the need to fit work around availability of volunteers, machinery and within the timetable (either overnight or during winter shutdown periods for more extensive jobs), suggests that it is the kind of thing that probably requires planning as a rolling programme stretching several years in advance, at least in outline. As ever, availability of finance at the right time is key.

Tom

Click to expand...

I think the significant issue regarding the Scotsman relay was that it was done at very short notice and as I understand it was carried out by contractors exclusively so for those reasons alone would be unnecessarily expensive

I think the significant issue regarding the Scotsman relay was that it was done at very short notice and as I understand it was carried out by contractors exclusively so for those reasons alone would be unnecessarily expensive

Click to expand...

And presumably was something the PLC board had to approve at the time, and something that cannot be a reason for a newly constituted board voting off Ian Coleby as Chairman, as track maintenance is a long term matter, and also something he had no expertise of.

Seems an irrelevant matter to bring up. Cancel Flying Scotsman's visit, or do some expensive track repairs? Nothing the fault of Ian Coleby - but his previous Chairmen and Boards would be culpable.

The Severn Valley benefits from a much more populous catchment area, and doesn't have a large expanse of water like the Severn Estuary close by. As a consequence, passenger numbers and revenue are both higher than the WSR, almost 241000 passengers in 2017. The big difference is that the closest equivalent on the SVR to the WSRA, namely the Severn Valley Railway Charitable Trust, donated £345000 to SVR PLC projects in 2017, and £280000 the previous year. Contrast that with the few hundred pounds raised for WSR projects by the WSRA!

You may ask how I know all this! Well, in spite of my previously being a volunteer on the WSR, and now on the GWSR, my daughter, on joining me one weekend last autumn on a visit to the SVR, picked up a leaflet regarding SVR shareholdiing, and persuaded the rest of the family to join her in purchasing some SVR shares for me as a Christmas present. Hence I have their annual report.

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

And that I would say sums it up, the SVR have an supporters organisation that Supports the company that runs the SVR, financially as well as by providing the workforce , clearly the WSR needs to change to somehow reduce its outgoings, either by more reliance on volunteer projects, or by how it delivers the product, that much is clear, on the ground clearly groups do work together , so that's not the problem, I do wonder how much of the present problems are in effect as result of past mistakes, and lessons being slow to be learnt, airing your dirty linen in public being one of them, disagree by all means, but not open for all to see, if the members consider that a director, or trustee is going beyond their remit then due process must be observed, and its for the members to decide, or shareholders, if any action is found to not meet their their support and to call the necessary meetings to remedy it.
As regards cutting overheads, there is only a limited number of ways, cut the number of steam turns, to reduce the coal bill and either run more diesel turns, or more DMU turns, until you get costs under control, where costs are duplicated between organisations, have central ordering, to maximise bulk purchases for the railway on things like food items

Please, these posts are utter nonsense. This thread has a very clear title and those involved deserve that it is treated seriously.
No more of this rubbish. Let's discuss what's really important.

Ian Coleby

Click to expand...

Very true and my apologies to any individuals upset by my attempt at lighthearted comments.

It is undoubtedly a serious matter that does need careful and thoughtful consideration by all parties. The problem is how can we have a serious discussion when we are being treated to a wall of silence from those parties whom we would expect to have at least made some sort of formal statement by now? It is no wonder speculation is rife and conjecture running wild on here. Then there are the inter-personal rivalries that always seem to rear their ugly heads in public as soon as anything contentious happens at the WSR. I do not think I am alone in becoming more than a little tired of that.

If details were known they could be discussed seriously. If, for example, an Extraordinary General Meeting was being called serious suggestions for motions could be made etc. etc.

If the discussion on here was based solely on the known details then we'd only be on page 3 or 4 and not 26. With all the wild speculation and unsubstantiated rumours flying around is it any wonder that some find it difficult not to treat some of the more outrageous posts or posters to a little gentle humour?

I finally got my act together - but now I've forgotten where I put it!

I suggest the obvious inference was that Frank made a mistake and regretted his decision to resign.

Perfectly understandable, and I do not see why Messrs Whitehouse and White et al should have got so upset by this.

Given the machinations Frank dealt with as WSRA Chairman to get the Ex-6 trustees evicted, which Messrs Whitehouse and White turned a blind eye to at the time, it seems a bit rich for them to insist on strict adherence to protocal a week or so ago, and remove him as a WSRA trustee. Double standards?

Seems a total mess to me with lots of unanswered questions still, with principle players (usually very vocal on here) staying silent on the salient matters.